Q MISS PEER, I BELIEVE WE HAD LEFT OFF WITH YOU HAD DESCRIBED SOME POPULATION STATISTICS ABOUT THE COMPARISON YOU MADE BETWEEN MR. WESTERFIELD’S KNOWN SAMPLE AND THE BLOOD ON THE JACKET LAPEL. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A YES.

Q I BELIEVE YOU HAD ACTUALLY SAID THE NUMBERS ALREADY, IS THAT RIGHT, FOR EACH OF THE THREE MAJOR POPULATION GROUPS?

A YES, I HAVE.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS TAKE THE BLACK FELT PEN IF THAT’S HANDY THERE. AND IF YOU WOULD WRITE IN — FIRST OF ALL, THOSE SAMPLES WERE CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS WRITE IN THE MOST COMMON FREQUENCY, IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THAT PROFILE IS FOUND MOST COMMONLY AMONGST THE THREE MAJOR GROUPS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS EVIDENCE ITEMS ON EXHIBIT 119. AND DO THAT FOR THE LAPEL JACKET STAIN.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

MR. CLARKE: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS HAS WRITTEN IN ON EXHIBIT 119 1 IN 1,200.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q IS THAT CORRECT, MISS PEER?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q OKAY. NOW YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT AGAIN.

FIRST OF ALL, 1 IN 1,200 DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE QUITE AS RARE AS THE EARLIER NUMBERS FOR THE CARPET STAIN AND THE SHOULDER STAIN FROM THE JACKET. IS THAT RIGHT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q WHY IS THAT THE CASE?

A LESS GENETIC MARKERS WERE DEVELOPED.

Q NOW LET’S GO BACK TO THOSE NUMBERS IF WE COULD, TO THE RIGHT OF THE JACKET LAPEL STAIN AT THE BOTTOM OF 119. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, USING THE BOARD AND PERHAPS A POINTER THERE.

A THIS GENETIC MARKER HERE WAS DEVELOPED —

Q AND YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE MARKER UNDER THE COLUMN THAT IS LABELED D3S1358?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A TWO GENETIC MARKERS WERE DEVELOPED HERE, TWO TYPES IN THIS ONE GENETIC MARKER.

Q SECOND MARKER LABELED VWA.

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q GO AHEAD.

A NO D.N.A. WAS DETECTED AT THIS MARKER HERE.

Q FGA.

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

A THE SEX DETERMINING MARKERS WERE PRESENT.

Q I DON’T THINK WE’VE EXPLAINED THE SEX DETERMINANT. WE SEE THERE X, Y. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN

A THAT’S THE DESIGNATION FOR MALE D.N.A.

Q HOW DO YOU TELL MALE D.N.A. FROM FEMALE D.N.A. AT THAT PARTICULAR MARKER?

A FEMALE D.N.A. WOULD BE EXCLUSIVELY AN X. AND MALE D.N.A. WOULD BE INDICATED BY AN X AND A Y.

Q SO A MALE HAS BOTH THE X AND Y TYPES AND THE FEMALE HAS ONLY THE X TYPES?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A AT THIS MARKER HERE WE HAVE THESE TWO TYPES THAT WERE DEVELOPED.

Q AT D8S1179?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A AT THE MARKER HERE, D21S11 ONLY A TRACE RESULT WAS OBSERVED.

Q SO, THEREFORE, UNDER YOUR SYSTEM OF DETERMINING TYPES, THERE WASN’T ENOUGH D.N.A. TO CALL THE TYPES AT THAT LOCATION.

A WELL, IT IS. IT IS OBSERVED. IT’S RECORDED. BUT IT’S NOT USED WITH THE SAME CONFIDENCE THAT THESE MARKERS ARE THAT ARE ABOVE THAT THRESHOLD LEVEL.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A AT THIS MARKER, T18251, NO D.N.A. WAS DETERMINED.

Q OKAY.

A AND AT D5S818 WE HAVE ONE TYPE THAT APPEARED ABOVE THE THRESHOLD LEVEL AND ONE TYPE THAT WAS BELOW.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A AT THE D13 MARKER THERE WAS NO D.N.A. DETERMINED.

AND AT THE D7S820 THERE WAS ALSO NO D.N.A. TYPES THAT WERE DETECTED.

Q NOW, THE LAST FOUR APPEAR TO HAVE THE DESIGNATION N.T. FOR NOT TESTED.

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q I GATHER EVEN YOU DID NOT TEST THAT SAMPLE AT THOSE PARTICULAR D.N.A. LOCATIONS.

A NO, I DID NOT.

Q WHY WAS THAT?

A THIS JACKET WAS REPORTED TO ME AS BELONGING TO DAVID WESTERFIELD. AND AS I’VE STATED EARLIER, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO FIND SOMEONE’S OWN D.N.A. OR THEIR OWN BODY FLUIDS ON THEIR OWN CLOTHING. WHEN I DID THESE TESTS AND DETERMINED THE TYPES AND COMPARED IT TO MR. WESTERFIELD, IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH HIM; THEREFORE, I DID NOT DO ANY MORE TESTING ON IT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

OF THE SAMPLES, THE D.N.A. LOCATIONS WHERE YOU DID GET RESULTS, DO ANY OF THEM EXCLUDE MR. WESTERFIELD AS BEING THE DONOR?

A THEY DO NOT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

LASTLY, WHILE YOU’RE UP THERE, THE NUMBERS OFF TO THE RIGHT WITH REGARD TO THE CARPET AND THE SHOULDER STAINS, DO THE NUMBERS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THERE REFLECT THE MOST COMMON NUMBERS FROM ANY OF THE THREE MAJOR RACIAL GROUPS?

A YES, THEY DO.

Q IS THAT A CONSERVATIVE WAY OF REPORTING HOW RARE THOSE GENETIC PROFILES ARE?

A YES, IT IS.

Q ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT AGAIN. THANK YOU.

ARE YOU AWARE OF APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ON THE EARTH?

A YES, I AM. APPROXIMATELY SIX BILLION.

Q A BILLION IS — SIX OR SEVEN BILLION IS MORE COMMON THAN THE NUMBERS THAT YOU’VE WRITTEN ON THE CHART WITH REGARD TO THE CARPET STAIN AND THE SHOULDER STAIN, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q NOW, I’M SORRY, I SPOKE TOO SOON ABOUT THE CHART. BUT PERHAPS YOU CAN DO IT WITH A POINTER.

WE SEE THAT WITH THE CARPET STAIN AND THE SHOULDER STAIN THAT THE ESTIMATED RARITY OF THOSE PROFILES ARE DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER. IS THAT CORRECT?

A YES, THEY ARE.

Q THOUGH THEY’RE BOTH CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERPANTS AND LATER TESTING THAT YOU DID OF DANIELLE VAN DAM’S RIB SAMPLE, IS THAT RIGHT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q WHY?

A THEY’RE DIFFERENT BECAUSE ONE OF THE MARKERS IN THE BLOODSTAIN FROM THE CARPET DID NOT SHOW ANY D.N.A. TYPES. WHEN THE STATISTICAL CALCULATION IS MADE, IT’S MADE ONLY WITH THE NUMBERS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED TO THE MARKERS IN THE EVIDENCE SAMPLE, NOT TO THE REFERENCE, BUT IN THE EVIDENCE SAMPLE. THEREFORE, WHEN A STATISTICAL CALCULATION WAS MADE OF THE CARPET STAINS, IT ONLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE TWELVE MARKERS THAT ARE THERE. AND WITH THE BLOODSTAIN FROM THE JACKET, IT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ALL THIRTEEN MARKERS THAT ARE PRESENT.

Q COULD YOU JUST POINT OUT FOR US ON EXHIBIT 119 THE LOCATION WHERE YOU WEREN’T ABLE TO DETERMINE THE D.N.A. TYPES FROM THE CARPET STAIN.

A YES. THAT WOULD BE AT THIS LAST MARKER HERE, CSF1PO, THE N.D.

Q I’M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

A THAT’S WHERE THE N.D. IS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

ASSUMING THAT THAT SAMPLE WAS TESTED AND OBTAINED A RESULT THE SAME AS THE JACKET STAIN AND THE UNDERPANTS OF 11 COMMA 12, ASSUMING THAT THAT HAPPENED, WOULD THE NUMBERS BE THE SAME BETWEEN THE JACKET SHOULDER STAIN AND THE CARPET STAIN?

A YES, THEY WOULD.

Q ALL RIGHT. I DON’T THINK I NEED TO HAVE YOU USE THE POINTER ANY MORE.

DID YOU ACTUALLY SEE THE UNDERWEAR, ITEM NUMBER 3?

A YES, I DID.

Q DID YOU SEE THE STAINS BEFORE YOU CONDUCTED ANY TESTING OR REMOVAL OF THOSE STAINS FOR TESTING? CAN YOU DESCRIBE THEIR APPEARANCE?

A YES. THE STAIN THAT I SAW IN THE CROTCH AREA OF THE UNDERPANTS, ITEM NUMBER 3, WAS A YELLOWISH STAIN.

Q IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN PREVIOUSLY IN UNDERWEAR FROM FEMALES?

A YES, IT IS.

Q CAN YOU TELL US MORE ABOUT WHAT IT APPEARED AND WHAT IT CONSISTED OF.

A IT APPEARED TO BE POSSIBLE DRAINAGE OR SECRETIONS FROM THE VAGINAL AREA OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q DID YOU DETERMINE IF THERE WAS ANY CELLS ON SIDE — I’M SORRY — CELLS ATTACHED TO OR WHAT THAT SECRETION CONSISTS OF?

A YES.

Q AND WHAT WERE THEY?

A I OBSERVED CELLS THAT ARE REFERRED TO AS NUCLEAR EPITHELIAL CELLS.

Q IS THAT UNDER A MICROSCOPE?

A YES, IT IS.

Q SO WITH YOUR GLASSES, READING GLASSES, I ASSUME YOU CAN’T SEE THEM.

A NO, YOU CANNOT.

Q IS THAT SOMETHING YOU COMMONLY SEE IN UNDERWEAR IN THE COURSE OF YOUR WORK?

A YES, IT IS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU I THINK TWO OR THREE PHOTOBOARDS AND ASK TO TAKE YOU BACK TO THE TIME WHEN YOU WERE IN THE MOTOR HOME AND YOU OBSERVED A NUMBER OF THESE STAINS. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A YES, I DO.

Q IN PARTICULAR IF WE CAN START WITH A PHOTOBOARD LABELED EXHIBIT 50. DO ANY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS A THROUGH E ON THIS PHOTOBOARD SHOW THE CURTAIN STAIN AREA WHERE YOU OBTAINED I BELIEVE WHAT WAS LABELED ITEM NUMBER 86?

A YES. IT APPEARS THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THE PHOTOS DO IN PART.

Q OKAY.

POINTER STILL HANDY?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU USE IT TO INDICATE WHICH PHOTOGRAPH AND THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THE CURTAIN STAIN YOU OBTAINED WAS LOCATED.

A IT WOULD BE ON THIS CURTAIN IN THIS AREA. THIS IS THE DRIVER’S-SIDE SEAT. THIS WOULD BE THE CURTAIN IN THAT LOCATION. IT APPEARS TO BE A PHOTO MUCH CLOSER UP. THE CURTAINS ARE BARELY OFF TO THE SIDE HERE, BUT IT WOULD BE IN THIS AREA.

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT — I’M SORRY — PHOTO A OF EXHIBIT 50 AN AREA IMMEDIATELY LEFT OF THE DRIVER’S SEAT AND IN EXHIBIT 50, PHOTOGRAPH B, A SIMILAR AREA.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q THAT’S WHERE YOU OBTAINED THAT STAIN FROM?

A YES.

Q NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT ANOTHER PHOTOBOARD THAT’S BEEN LABELED EXHIBIT 108. DOES THAT BOARD HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT SHOW THE AREA FROM WHICH YOU OBTAINED THE STAIN FROM THE CARPET, ITEM NUMBER 84?

A YES, IT DOES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND DESCRIBE THAT, PLEASE.

A IT WOULD BE THIS PHOTO. AND THAT STAIN WAS LOCATED IN THIS AREA. APPROXIMATELY IN THIS AREA HERE.

Q FIRST OF ALL, YOU’RE INDICATING PHOTOGRAPH E OF EXHIBIT 108.

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q AND WHAT I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IF YOU WOULD, MISS PEER, IS TAKE ONE OF THE PENS AND WHY DON’T WE USE A RED PEN. I’M GOING TO ASK YOU ON PHOTOGRAPH E ON EXHIBIT 108 TO WRITE IN THE NUMBERS 84 IN THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION THAT YOU OBTAINED THAT STAIN FROM.

A (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)

Q AND YOU HAVE DONE THAT ON PHOTOGRAPH E.

A YES, I HAVE.

Q I’M ALSO GOING TO ASK YOU WHILE YOU’RE UP TO LOCATE THAT STAIN AND ONE MORE, THAT IS, ON ONE MORE BOARD. I WILL JUST HOLD IT UP, EXHIBIT 96, A DIAGRAM.

FIRST OF ALL, DOES THAT DIAGRAM FAIRLY DEPICT THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE MOTOR HOME?

A YES. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, IT DOES.

Q OKAY.

COULD YOU THEN WRITE AGAIN IN THAT RED PEN THE NUMBER 84 AND THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION WHERE THE CARPET STAIN WAS LOCATED.

A APPROXIMATELY IN THIS AREA.

MR. CLARKE: AND FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS DONE THAT.

ALL RIGHT. NOW YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q YOU’VE CONDUCTED D.N.A. TESTING ON OTHER ITEMS IN ADDITION TO THOSE THAT WE’VE DESCRIBED SO FAR IN YOUR TESTIMONY, CORRECT?

A YES, I DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE IF WE COULD. WERE YOU PROVIDED AN ITEM FOR D.N.A. ANALYSIS THAT WAS LABELED ITEM 6-1 AND DESCRIBED AS A STAIN FROM A GARAGE?

A I WOULD LIKE — MAY I REFER TO MY REPORT AND NOTES?

Q YES.

TELL US ABOUT THE RESULT.

A THAT IS A SWAB OF A RED STAIN A FROM THE GARAGE FLOOR, ITEM 6-1. THIS IS FROM PAGE 1 OF A REPORT DATED APRIL 30TH, 2002.

Q ALL RIGHT.

A AND A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF HUMAN D.N.A. WAS RECOVERED FROM THAT STAIN. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO OBTAIN D.N.A. RESULTS FROM THAT STAIN, AND THOSE RESULTS WERE NOT OBTAINED. THERE WAS NO POSITIVE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THAT ITEM.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO A SERIES OF THREE STAINS LABELED 14, 14-2, AND 14-4, IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM A STAIRWAY AREA. DID YOU TEST THOSE PARTICULAR SAMPLES?

A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A NO D.N.A. WAS RECOVERED FROM THOSE SAMPLES. ALSO AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE ANY D.N.A. TYPE THAT MIGHT BE PRESENT IN THAT, AND THOSE ATTEMPTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.

Q YOU TESTED ALL THREE OF THOSE STAINS?

A YES, I DID.

Q WAS THERE ANY INDICATION YOU RECEIVED THAT THERE WAS EVEN HUMAN D.N.A. PRESENT?

A THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF HUMAN D.N.A.

Q GOING BACK TO THE CURTAIN STAIN. THAT WAS NUMBER 86 FROM THE MOTOR HOME, CORRECT?

A CORRECT.

Q WHAT, IF ANY, RESULTS DID YOU OBTAIN FROM THAT?

A NO D.N.A. RESULTS WERE OBTAINED FROM THAT ITEM.

Q NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF YOU CONDUCTED ANY D.N.A. ANALYSIS ON VARIOUS ITEMS FROM THE BODY OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.

A YES, I DID.

Q DID THAT INCLUDE WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED TO YOU AS ITEM 100, LEFT-HAND NAIL CLIPPINGS FROM THE VICTIM?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q WHAT WERE YOUR RESULTS OF THAT ANALYSIS?

A HUMAN D.N.A. WAS RECOVERED FROM THAT SAMPLE. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE TYPES IN THAT SAMPLE. THOSE RESULTS WERE THAT THE D.N.A. WAS CONSISTENT WITH HAVING ORIGINATED FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q WAS THERE ANY INDICATION OF ANY FOREIGN D.N.A. TYPES AT ALL OTHER THAN THOSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO HER?

A THERE WAS NOT.

Q DID YOU ALSO TEST WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS ITEM 101, NAIL CLIPPINGS FROM HER RIGHT HAND?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q WITH WHAT RESULT?

A THE SAME RESULTS WERE OBTAINED AS THE LEFT HAND. THERE WAS D.N.A. RECOVERED, AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE D.N.A. TYPES OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q DID YOU ALSO TEST ITEM NUMBER 104 WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS A SWAB OR SWABS FROM THE FRONT NECK AREA OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?

A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A NO DETECTIBLE AMOUNTS OF D.N.A. WAS RECOVERED. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO GET ANY TYPE OF D.N.A. RESULTS POSSIBLE, BUT NONE WERE OBTAINED.

Q WHAT ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 105, IDENTIFIED AS SWAB OR SWABS FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM’S BACK NECK AREA?

A ALSO AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE. NO D.N.A., NO HUMAN D.N.A., WAS RECOVERED. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO GET ANY TYPES OUT OF THAT SAMPLE. NO D.N.A. TYPES WERE RECOVERED.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS NUMBER 125. IDENTIFIED AS ORAL SWABS TAKEN FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM. DID YOU TEST THAT?

A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE IF SPERM CELLS WERE PRESENT IN THAT SAMPLE. THERE WERE NO SPERM CELLS THAT WERE FOUND. NO FURTHER WORK WAS PERFORMED.

Q WHAT ABOUT NUMBER 126, IDENTIFIED AS VAGINAL SWABS FROM DANIELLE?

A THAT SAMPLE WAS ALSO ANALYZED TO DETERMINE IF ANY SPERM CELLS WERE PRESENT IN THAT SAMPLE. NO SPERM CELLS WERE FOUND. AND NO FURTHER WORK WAS PERFORMED ON THAT SAMPLE.

Q ON BOTH THIS ITEM AND THE PREVIOUS ITEM WHY WAS NO FURTHER WORK PERFORMED?

A THOSE WERE REPORTED TO ME AS SWABS TAKEN FROM THE BODY OF DANIELLE VAN DAM. THEY WERE TESTED PRIMARILY FOR THE PRESENCE OF SPERM, AND ANY OTHER D.N.A. PRESENT WOULD BE ASSUMED TO BE FROM HER.

Q LASTLY IN THIS GROUP, DID YOU TEST AN ITEM IDENTIFIED AS NUMBER 127, RECTAL SWABS FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM?

A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A THAT SAMPLE WAS ALSO ANALYZED TO DETERMINE IF SPERM WAS PRESENT. NO SPERM WERE FOUND. AND NO FURTHER WORK WAS PERFORMED.

Q CAN BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS ON A BODY BE WASHED OFF BY THE ELEMENTS?

A YES, THEY CAN.

Q INCLUDING RAIN?

A YES, THEY CAN.

Q INCLUDING TIME?

A YES.

Q INCLUDING DECOMPOSITION?

A YES.

Q DID YOU ALSO TEST I BELIEVE THE LABEL NUMBER WAS 48A, THE BEDSPREAD FROM THE MOTOR HOME THAT YOU HAD EARLIER DESCRIBED OBTAINING A POSITIVE PRESUMPTIVE BLOODSTAIN RESULT?

A YES, I DID.

Q WITH WHAT RESULT?

A THE D.N.A. TYPES THAT WERE RECOVERED WERE CONSISTENT WITH HAVING ORIGINATED FROM DAVID WESTERFIELD.

Q WHAT ABOUT ITEM 94D-3, THE JACKET STAIN FROM THE NECK AREA? I MAY HAVE ASKED YOU THIS, BUT IF YOU COULD JUST DESCRIBE IT.

A COULD YOU REPEAT THE ITEM NUMBER ON THAT?

Q SURE. 94D-3.

A NO D.N.A. TYPES WERE RECOVERED FROM THAT ITEM.

Q LASTLY, AS A FINAL AREA, WERE YOU INVOLVED IN FORWARDING ANY PARTICULAR SAMPLES TO OTHER LABORATORIES?

A YES, I WAS.

Q IN PARTICULAR DID YOU PREPARE A SAMPLE OR OTHERWISE WERE INVOLVED IN PREPARING A SAMPLE TO BE SENT TO THE F. B. I. APPROXIMATELY FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR?

A YES, I WAS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

DID THAT SHIPMENT THAT YOU PREPARED INCLUDE KNOWN MOUTH SWABS FROM BRENDA VAN DAM?

A YES, IT DID.

Q WERE THEY LABELED AS ITEM NUMBER 42?

A YES, THEY WERE.

Q AND THAT WAS SENT TO THE F. B. I. FOR FURTHER TESTING, IS THAT CORRECT?

A YES.

Q DID YOU ALSO PLAY A ROLE IN PREPARING ANY EVIDENCE ITEMS TO BE SENT TO A LABORATORY CALLED CELLMARK DIAGNOSTICS?

A YES, I DID.

Q WHEN DID THAT TAKE PLACE?

A THE SAMPLES WERE PREPARED ON MARCH 21ST OF 2002. BUT THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEASED TO THE PROPERTY ROOM FOR SHIPMENT ON MARCH 25TH, 2002.

Q DID THAT SHIPMENT INCLUDE — I HAVEN’T ASKED THIS. I’M SORRY. — 94D-2, THE PORTION OF THE JACKET SHOULDER STAIN D.N.A.?

A YES, IT DID.

Q WERE THERE ALSO PREPARED IN THAT SHIPMENT KNOWN SAMPLES OF BOTH DANIELLE VAN DAM AND DAVID WESTERFIELD?

A YES.

Q IN PARTICULAR A PORTION OF THE RIB BONE OF DANIELLE?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT.

LASTLY I WOULD LIKE TO REFER YOU TO A SHIPMENT PREPARED FOR TRANSFER TO BODE TECHNOLOGY. DID YOU TAKE PART IN THAT?

A YES, I DID.

Q WHEN?

A APRIL 12TH, 2002.

Q DID THAT SHIPMENT THAT YOU PREPARED INCLUDE ITEM
53G-2P, IDENTIFIED AS A STAIN FROM THE R.V. MATTRESS PAD?

A YES, IT DID.

Q DID IT ALSO INCLUDE REMAINING PORTIONS OR THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE MOTOR HOME CARPET STAIN ABOUT WHICH YOU’VE ALREADY TESTIFIED, ITEM NUMBER 84?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q DID IT ALSO INCLUDE KNOWN SAMPLES OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?

A YES, IT DID.

Q AND KNOWN SAMPLES OF DAVID WESTERFIELD?

A YES, IT DID.

MR. CLARKE: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q GOOD AFTERNOON, MA’AM.

A GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q CAN YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BLOODSTAIN WHICH I BELIEVE IS 84 IN THE MOTOR HOME, DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF THAT?

A WELL, I ATTEMPTED TO TAKE A PICTURE OF IT WHEN I BROUGHT THE SAMPLE INTO THE LABORATORY.

Q BEFORE YOU TOOK IT INTO THE LABORATORY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS YOU ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED, DID YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF IT?

A I DID NOT TAKE A PHOTO, NO.

Q DO YOU HAVE A PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF THE SIZE OF THAT STAIN?

A NO. I HAVE AN APPROXIMATE DESCRIPTION.

Q I’M SORRY. WHEN YOU SAY APPROXIMATE, WHAT YOU — WHY IS IT APPROXIMATE AND NOT. . .

A THE REASON WHY IT’S AN APPROXIMATE IS WHEN THE STAIN WAS OBSERVED BY MYSELF AND CRIMINALIST TANYA DULANEY, WE NOTED THAT A STAIN WAS PRESENT. I NOTED THE APPROXIMATE SIZE AND THE APPROXIMATE COLOR. AND THEN I CHEMICALLY TESTED IT.

DURING THE COURSE OF IT BEING CHEMICALLY TESTED, THE FIBERS OF THE CARPET WERE SOMEWHAT DISTURBED, SO AN EXACT MEASUREMENT COULD NOT BE TAKEN OF IT AFTER I HAD CHEMICALLY TESTED IT.

Q SO BEFORE THE CHEMICAL TEST WAS DONE, THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO PHOTOGRAPH IT WITH A, FOR INSTANCE, A MILLIMETER RULER OR AN INCH RULER?

A NO, THERE WAS NOT.

Q SO YOU CAN’T TELL US THE PRECISE SIZE OF THE STAIN. WHAT’S YOUR ESTIMATE?

A MY ESTIMATE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE-QUARTER-INCH IN DIAMETER.

Q AND THAT’S POST APPLICATION OF WHATEVER IT IS YOU APPLIED, IS THAT RIGHT?

A NO. THAT IS PRE CHEMICAL TESTING.

Q WHAT ARE YOU BASING THAT ON, YOUR MEMORY?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q DID YOU WRITE IT IN YOUR NOTES?

A NO, I DID NOT. THE REASON WHY IT DIDN’T APPEAR IN MY NOTES WAS BECAUSE IT WAS AN APPROXIMATION THAT I COULD NOT MEASURE.

Q SO WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME IS SEVERAL MONTHS LATER YOU’RE BEING ASKED YOUR BEST MEMORY OF THE SIZE OF A STAIN IN THE CASE AND IT’S YOUR BEST MEMORY TODAY THAT IT’S ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW THE SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT PRESERVATION RATHER THAN RELYING ON YOUR MEMORY IS TO MEMORIALIZE IT BY 35-MILLIMETER PHOTOGRAPH AND RULER, CORRECT?

MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. ALSO ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE STAINS THAT ARE TESTED SOMETIMES WHEN WE EXAMINE AN ITEM, ESPECIALLY OUT IN THE FIELD, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STAINS THAT WE ARE TESTING, AND WE DO NOT PHOTOGRAPH THEM PRIOR TO TESTING. USUALLY WHAT OCCURS IS THEY ARE —

MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO QUESTION PENDING. I’M SORRY. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED.

THE COURT: I THINK SHE’S CONCLUDING HER ANSWER.

YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

USUALLY AFTER A TEST INDICATES THAT THAT IS IN FACT A BIOLOGICAL FLUID SUCH AS BLOOD, THEN THE SAMPLE IS PHOTOGRAPHED AND THE PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN WITH A RULER TO DEPICT THAT STAIN. THE THING THAT OCCURRED IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE FIBERS WERE DISRUPTED. WHEN I APPLIED MY TESTING TO IT, WHICH IS A COTTON-TIP SWAB, THE FIBERS WERE DISRUPTED AND YOU COULD NOT SEE THE STAIN AS CLEARLY AS BEFORE I HAD TESTED IT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q MA’AM, YOU TOOK 150 — YOU HAVE MANY HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF NOTES, DON’T YOU?

A YES, I DO.

Q THE REASON YOU PREPARE NOTES IS TO MEMORIALIZE YOUR OBSERVATIONS AS THEY CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OCCUR, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ANOTHER REASON IS TO INSURE THAT GIVEN THAT YOU’RE HUMAN, YOUR MEMORY IS PRESERVED SO IT DOESN’T FADE OVER TIME, CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q DOES YOUR MEMORY GET BETTER WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME?

A NO. BUT THIS MEMORY HAS STAYED INTACT.

Q YOU THINK THIS PARTICULAR MEMORY HAS STAYED INTACT AS OPPOSED TO OTHERS, IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US?

A THAT IS WHAT I RECALL WITH THAT STAIN.

Q ALL RIGHT.

EVEN THOUGH IT’S NOT IN YOUR NOTES, RIGHT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q MA’AM, I WOULD LIKE TO SPECIFICALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO MR. CLARKE ASKED YOU I THINK ITEMS 100 AND 101. THESE ARE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS. OR MATERIAL FROM UNDERNEATH THE FINGERNAILS.

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q IT’S A FACT THAT WITH REGARD TO 100 — THAT RELATED TO, I’M SORRY, WHICH HAND? THE RIGHT HAND OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?

A THE LEFT HAND.

Q AND WHAT HAPPENED, YOU SCRAPED OR SOMEONE SCRAPED UNDERNEATH THE FINGERNAILS TO REMOVE ANY POTENTIAL SKIN FROM ANY POTENTIAL ASSAILANTS OR WHAT?

A I WASN’T PRESENT AT THE TIME THIS WAS COLLECTED.

Q YOU JUST IDENTIFIED OR SOUGHT TO IDENTIFY WHAT WAS COLLECTED, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q DAVID WESTERFIELD IS EXCLUDED, ISN’T THAT CORRECT, FROM 100?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q AND SIMILARLY WITH REGARD TO 101, THAT WAS THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT RIGHT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q DAVID WESTERFIELD WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THAT AS WELL, ISN’T THAT TRUE?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q CAN YOU TELL ME, MA’AM, WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS, WELL, THE CHARTS, CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN THE BLOOD GOT THERE?

A I CANNOT TELL YOU THAT.

Q CAN YOU TELL ME HOW LONG IT WAS THERE?

A NO, I CANNOT.

Q CAN YOU TELL ME HOW IT GOT THERE?

A NO, I CANNOT.

MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. CLARKE?

MR. CLARKE: JUST A COUPLE, YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q MISS PEER, WAS THERE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF RESULTS AS THE BEST AVENUE TO RETEST IT?

A YES, IT IS.

Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS THAT DONE IN THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE CARPET SAMPLE?

A YES, THEY WERE.

Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS THAT DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE STAIN ON THE JACKET?

A YES, IT WAS.

Q MR. FELDMAN JUST ASKED YOU ABOUT THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS AND ASKED YOU IF MR. WESTERFIELD WAS EXCLUDED. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A YES, I DO.

Q IS IT ALSO THE CASE THAT FROM YOUR RESULTS FROM THE FINGERNAILS THERE WAS NO FOREIGN D.N.A., THAT IS, FOREIGN TO DANIELLE VAN DAM, AT ALL, CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q DOES THAT MEAN EVERYONE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT DANIELLE VAN DAM WOULD BE EXCLUDED?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU.

NOTHING FURTHER.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q DOES IT ALSO MEAN THERE WAS NOTHING THERE?

A NO. I CAN’T EXACTLY SAY THAT.

MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

IS THIS WITNESS TO BE SUBJECT TO RECALL OR EXCUSED?

MR. CLARKE: NO. CAN BE EXCUSED.

MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: EXCUSED.

ALL RIGHT. MA’AM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE THESE PROCEEDINGS. YOU ARE UNDER AN ADMONITION, HOWEVER, NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN AS IT MAY RELATE TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.

(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)

MR. CLARKE: YES. LEWIS MADDOX, YOUR HONOR.

LEWIS MADDOX,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: YES. MY NAME IS LEWIS MADDOX. L-E-W-I-S
M-A-D-D-O-X.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

A HELLO.

Q WHO ARE YOU EMPLOYED BY?

A I’M EMPLOYED BY ORCHID CELLMARK, WHICH IS LOCATED IN GERMANTOWN, MARYLAND.

Q IS THAT A LABORATORY THAT’S BEEN KNOWN PREVIOUSLY BY THE TITLE CELLMARK DIAGNOSTICS?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q DOES THAT REFLECT A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP AT SOME POINT?

A YES, IT DOES.

Q WHAT IS YOUR POSITION THERE?

A MY TITLE IS LABORATORY DIRECTOR.

Q IN YOUR ROLE AS LABORATORY DIRECTOR, WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES?

A I SERVE AS THE LABORATORY DIRECTOR AS A TECHNICAL REVIEWER. THAT’S WHERE THE ANALYST IN THE LABORATORY WILL PERFORM THE D.N.A. WORK AND THEN KEEP A RECORD OF THE WORK THAT THEY PERFORM IN A CASE FOLDER, AND THEY DO THIS WORK ACCORDING TO OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR D.N.A. TESTING. I AS THE TECHNICAL REVIEWER THEN REVIEW THE FOLDER WHICH THEY GENERATE WHICH CONTAINS THEIR NOTES AND THEIR RESULTS AND A COPY OF A DRAFT FOR THE REPORT.

I THEN MAKE SURE THAT THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED, THAT THE ASSOCIATED CONTROLS PERFORMED AS EXPECTED, AND THAT I AGREE WITH THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS AS STATED IN THE REPORT. AND THEN I CO-SIGN THE REPORT WITH THE ANALYST.

I ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AT CELLMARK.

Q DOES YOUR ROLE AS A LABORATORY DIRECTOR ALSO INCLUDE TESTIMONY IN COURT?

A YES, IT DOES.

Q WHAT IS ORCHID CELLMARK?

A ORCHID CELLMARK IS A PRIVATE FORENSIC D.N.A. TESTING LABORATORY.

Q WAS CELLMARK DIAGNOSTICS ONE OF THE FIRST PRIVATE D.N.A. LABORATORIES IN THE WORLD?

A YES. I BELIEVE THAT, YES, IT WAS.

Q DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHEN IT WAS FORMED AND BEGAN D.N.A. TESTING IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A IN LATE 1987 OR EARLY 1988 IS WHEN CELLMARK BEGAN TO DO D.N.A. TESTING.

Q WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY YOUR EDUCATION, FIRST OF ALL, FORMAL EDUCATION.

A I HAVE A BACHELOR’S OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN MICROBIOLOGY FROM CLEMSON UNIVERSITY AND A DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE OR MY PH. D. IN MEDICAL GENETICS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM. AFTER I RECEIVED MY PH. D., I CONTINUED MY TRAINING AS A POST-DOCTORAL FELLOW AT DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER.

Q YOU DESCRIBED HAVING A PH. D. IN MEDICAL GENETICS. CAN YOU JUST TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT MEDICAL GENETICS ARE.

A SURE. THE FIELD OF MEDICAL GENETICS IS A BROAD FIELD WHICH ENCOMPASSES BOTH POPULATION GENETICS OR THE STUDY OF HOW GENES ARE INHERITED AND HOW — AND THEN ALSO IN MEDICAL GENETICS WE STUDIED AND TRIED TO FIND DISEASE GENES WHICH RESULTED IN GENETIC DISEASE. WE ALSO TRIED TO CHARACTERIZE AND FIND SPECIFIC MUTATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN DISEASE, IN GENETIC DISEASE. FOR MY THESIS PROJECT FOR MY PH. D., I SPECIFICALLY WAS LOOKING FOR CHANGES IN A SPECIFIC GENE WHICH RESULTED IN PEDIATRIC EYE ANOMALIES.

Q HAVE YOU IN FACT USED D.N.A. TESTING METHODS IN YOUR MEDICAL RESEARCH?

A YES, I HAVE. DURING MY WORK FOR MY PH. D. AND ALSO IN MY WORK AT DUKE UNIVERSITY, I USED MANY OF THE SAME TECHNIQUES THAT WE USE CURRENTLY AT CELLMARK DIAGNOSTICS, WHICH INCLUDE P.C.R. REACTION.

Q ALL RIGHT.

SPECIFICALLY HAVE YOU AUTHORED PUBLICATIONS IN THE AREA OF D.N.A. AND D.N.A. RESEARCH?

A YES, I HAVE. I HAVE APPROXIMATELY FOUR PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS RELATED TO D.N.A. RESEARCH AND WORK AND NUMEROUS ABSTRACTS.

Q HAVE YOU ALSO GIVEN PRESENTATIONS OR LECTURES IN THE AREA OF D.N.A. AS WELL?

A I HAVE NOT GIVEN FORMAL PRESENTATIONS AT MEETINGS. I’VE PRESENTED MY POSTERS ON MY WORK AT SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO NEXT ASK YOU ABOUT ACCREDITATION. IS ORCHID CELLMARK ACCREDITED BY ANY AGENCIES?

A YES. CELLMARK IS. WE ARE ACCREDITED BY ASCLD, AND THAT STANDS FOR THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORATORY DIRECTORS. AND IT’S THE LABORATORY ACCREDITATION BOARD. WE ARE ALSO ACCREDITED BY AABB, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF BLOOD BANKS.

Q AS FAR AS THE LABORATORY’S ACCREDITATION BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORATORIES, WERE YOU IN FACT OR WAS CELLMARK IN FACT THE FIRST PRIVATE LABORATORY EVER ACCREDITED BY A. S. C. L. D.?

A THAT WAS BEFORE I BEGAN WORK AT CELLMARK, BUT, YES, I BELIEVE THEY WERE THE FIRST PRIVATE LABORATORY TO BE ACCREDITED BY ASCLD.

Q I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE ACTUAL TESTING THAT OCCURS AT ORCHID CELLMARK. DOES THAT INCLUDE EVIDENCE FROM CRIMINAL CASES?

A YES, IT DOES.

Q IN PARTICULAR DO YOU EXAMINE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF GENETIC MARKERS WHEN A SAMPLE IS SENT TO YOU FOR TESTING?

A YES, WE DO.

Q WHAT ARE THOSE MARKERS?RS?

A WE LOOK AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS WITHIN THE D.N.A. WHICH ARE TERMED SHORT TANDEM REPEATS OR S.T.R.’S. WE CAN LOOK AT A TOTAL OF THIRTEEN LOCATIONS IN THE D.N.A., AND WE OBTAIN THESE THIRTEEN LOCATIONS USING TWO KITS. WE USE THE PROFILER-PLUS KIT WHICH LOOKS AT NINE LOCATIONS IN THE D.N.A. PLUS A GENDER-SPECIFIC MARKER. AND A SECOND KIT CALLED THE COFILER KIT, WHICH LOOKS AT SIX LOCATIONS IN THE D.N.A., PLUS A GENDER-SPECIFIC MARKER. THERE’S TWO OVERLAPPING LOCATIONS IN THOSE TWO KITS, SO IT PRODUCES A TOTAL OF THIRTEEN LOCATIONS IN THE D.N.A. THAT WE USE TO DEVELOP A D.N.A. PROFILE.

Q ALL RIGHT.

THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF NEW TERMS THAT THE JURY HASN’T HEARD FROM EARLIER TODAY. YOU USED THE TERM S.T.R. IS THAT SHORT FOR SHORT TANDEM REPEAT?

A YES, IT IS.

Q IS THAT SIMPLY A DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPE OF GENETIC MARKERS THAT YOU LOOK AT IN THE LABORATORY?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I’M GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT, IF I CAN, DR. MADDOX, AND SHOW YOU A BOARD THE JURY’S PREVIOUSLY SEEN, WHAT’S BEEN LABELED EXHIBIT 119, AND ASK YOU TO TAKE A MOMENT, IF YOU WOULD, AND LOOK AT DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE WRITTEN ACROSS THE TOP TO THE RIGHT OF DESCRIPTION AND ALL THE WAY OVER TO JUST THE LEFT OF POSSIBLE SOURCE. TELL ME WHEN YOU’VE HAD A CHANCE TO DO THAT.

A OKAY.

Q ARE THOSE THE SAME OR DIFFERENT MARKERS, THAT IS, THE THIRTEEN MARKERS PLUS SEX TYPING THAT YOU USE AT ORCHID CELLMARK?

A THAT IS THE SAME THIRTEEN LOCATIONS IN THE D.N.A. THAT WE LOOKED AT AT CELLMARK.

Q AND ARE THEY JUST KNOWN GENERICALLY FOR SHORT AS S.T.R.-TYPE MARKERS?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q NOW I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, IF I COULD, TO EVIDENCE IN A CASE INVOLVING THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM AND ASK IF YOUR LABORATORY RECEIVED EVIDENCE FOR TESTING IN THAT CASE.

A YES, WE DID.

Q IN PARTICULAR DID YOU RECEIVE ANY EVIDENCE LABELED AS ITEM 94D-2 LABELED AS EXTRACTED D.N.A. FROM A JACKET STAIN?

A MAY I REFER TO MY NOTES?

Q PLEASE DO SO.

A YES, WE DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

DID YOU ALSO RECEIVE AN ITEM LABELED AS NUMBER 107, IDENTIFIED AS A RIB SAMPLE FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM?

A YES, WE DID.

Q DID YOU ALSO RECEIVE AN ITEM LABELED NUMBER 95, SWAB FROM DAVID WESTERFIELD?

A YES, WE DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TYPES OF SAMPLES. FOR PURPOSES OF IDENTIFYING A PROFILE, THAT IS, D.N.A. TYPES FROM A KNOWN PERSON, IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE FROM USING A RIB BONE VERSUS A MOUTH SWAB?

A NO, THERE’S NOT. WE EXPECT TO OBTAIN THE SAME D.N.A. PROFILE WHETHER WE — FROM AN INDIVIDUAL WHETHER WE LOOK AT A SEMEN SAMPLE, A BLOOD SAMPLE, TISSUE SAMPLE, OR, FOR EXAMPLE, A RIB SAMPLE.

Q DID YOU ALSO OBTAIN SAMPLES — I’M SORRY. DID YOU ALSO CONDUCT D.N.A. TYPING ON THE TWO KNOWN SAMPLES, THE RIB BONE FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM AND THE MOUTH SWABS FROM DAVID WESTERFIELD?

A YES, WE DID.

Q DID YOU THEN COMPARE THOSE RESULTS?

A YES.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A WE DETERMINED THAT THE D.N.A. WHICH WAS OBTAINED FROM THE JACKET STAIN IS FROM A FEMALE. THE D.N.A. PROFILE WHICH WAS OBTAINED FROM THIS SAMPLE MATCHES THE D.N.A. PROFILE WHICH IS OBTAINED FROM THE RIB SAMPLE FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM.

WE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT DAVID WESTERFIELD WAS EXCLUDED AS THE SOURCE OF THE D.N.A. OBTAINED FROM THIS SAMPLE.

Q AS A RESULT OF THOSE PROFILES BEING CONSISTENT, THAT IS, MATCHING BETWEEN DANIELLE VAN DAM AND THE JACKET STAIN, DID YOU CALCULATE APPROXIMATIONS OF HOW RARE THOSE MATCHING PROFILES ARE?

A YES, WE DID.

Q ARE THOSE CONTAINED IN YOUR REPORT I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY?

A YES, THEY ARE.

Q DO YOU DIVIDE THEM INTO MAJOR POPULATION GROUPS FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING ESTIMATES?

A YES, WE DID.

Q WHAT POPULATION GROUPS DO YOU USE?

A WE UTILIZE THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION, THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION, AND HISPANIC POPULATION.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE STARTED WITH CAUCASIAN EARLIER WITH THE PREVIOUS WITNESS, SO CAN YOU TELL US USING THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE LIKELIHOOD OF SELECTING A PERSON AT RANDOM FROM THAT POPULATION AND THAT PERSON MATCHING THE PROFILE SHARED BY BOTH THE JACKET STAIN AND DANIELLE VAN DAM.

A WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THIS D.N.A. PROFILE IN APPROXIMATELY ONE IN FIFTY-SEVEN TIMES TEN TO THE FIFTEENTH UNRELATED CAUCASIAN INDIVIDUALS.

Q OKAY. CAN YO HELP US WITH THAT?

A THAT WOULD BE FIFTY-SEVEN WITH FIFTEEN ZEROS AFTER IT. OR FIFTY-SEVEN I BELIEVE THAT’S QUINTRILLION. OR QUADRILLION.

Q QUADRILLION.

A QUADRILLION.

Q ALL RIGHT.

DID YOU ALSO MAKE A SIMILAR ESTIMATE WITH REGARD TO THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION?

A YES, WE DID.

Q WHAT WAS THAT LIKELIHOOD?

A WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THIS D.N.A. PROFILE IN APPROXIMATELY 1.1 TIMES TEN TO THE EIGHTEENTH UNRELATED AFRICAN-AMERICAN INDIVIDUALS.

Q HAVE WE GOT A NAME FOR THAT TYPE OF NUMBER?

A I’M NOT SURE THAT I KNOW IT. IT WOULD BE 1.1 WITH SEVENTEEN ZEROS AFTER IT. I BELIEVE IT’S QUINTILLION.

Q ALL RIGHT.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE HISPANIC POPULATION; CAN YOU GIVE US THAT SAME ESTIMATE.

A WE EXPECT TO SEE THIS D.N.A. PROFILE IN APPROXIMATELY ONE IN 2.9 TIMES TEN TO THE EIGHTEENTH UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WHAT’S THE MOST COMMON MAJOR RACIAL GROUP THAT PROVIDED AN ESTIMATE IN THIS CASE?

A IT WOULD BE THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION.

MR. CLARKE: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HAD MARKED AS EXHIBIT 122 A BOARD SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ONE LABELED AT THE TOP “D.N.A. TESTING RESULTS CELLMARK.”

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DISPLAY BOARD ENTITLED “D.N.A. TESTING RESULTS

CELLMARK” MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 122 FOR

IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q WHAT I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO, DR. MADDOX, IS I’M GOING TO PUT THIS BOARD UP HERE. I THINK I’M GOING TO PUT IT UP HERE. AND ASK YOU FIRST HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS BOARD LABELED EXHIBIT 122 BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON.

A YES, I HAVE.

Q AND HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT ACCURATELY SHOWS THE TYPES THAT YOUR LABORATORY DETERMINED FROM THE EVIDENCE AND KNOWN SAMPLES THAT WAS SENT TO ORCHID CELLMARK?

A YES, I HAVE.

Q DOES IT?

A YES, IT DOES.

THE ONE EXCEPTION IS THAT THE BLOOD, NUMBER 94D-2, WAS IDENTIFIED TO US AS AN EXTRACTED D.N.A. FROM A JACKET STAIN, NOT AS BEING FROM THE SHOULDER, WHENEVER WE HAD THIS CASE.

Q SO WHAT YOU OBTAINED, THEN, WAS D.N.A. THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN REMOVED FROM A PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE, IS THAT RIGHT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q BUT WAS IT IDENTIFIED TO YOU IN THE SHIPMENT AS HAVING BEEN D.N.A. ALREADY REMOVED FROM BLOOD; THAT IS, A BLOODSTAIN TAKEN FROM THE SHOULDER AREA OF A JACKET WITH A DESIGNATION NUMBER 94D-2?

A YES, IT DOES. YES, IT WAS.

Q JUST DEALING WITH THE MOST COMMON FREQUENCY, ONE IN FIFTY-SEVEN WITH A I’M JUST GOING TO SAY THE FIFTEEN ZEROS AFTER THAT, DOES THAT RESULT INDICATE AN IDENTIFICATION OF DANIELLE VAN DAM AS THE PERSON WHO LEFT THAT D.N.A.?

A THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A THIRTEEN-LOCI MATCH BETWEEN THE EXTRACTED D.N.A. EVIDENCE SAMPLE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED AND THE D.N.A. SAMPLE THAT WE EXTRACTED FROM THE RIB BONE AS IDENTIFIED FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM, IT’S — I CONCLUDE TO A REASONABLE DEGREE OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY THAT THE D.N.A. WHICH WAS OBTAINED IN THIS EXTRACT FROM THE JACKET ORIGINATED FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q ALL RIGHT.

WHEN YOU CONDUCT D.N.A. TESTING, DOES IT RESULT IN DATA THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE REVIEWED BY ANYONE WHO WANTS TO REVIEW IT?

A YES, IT DOES.

Q HAVE YOU PROVIDED ALL OF THAT DATA TO THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THIS CASE?

A WE HAVE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE CASE FOLDER WITH ALL THE RECORDS AND NOTES WHICH WERE MADE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:

Q SIR, WITH REGARD TO THE BLOODSTAIN THAT YOU EVALUATED, CAN YOU TELL WHEN IT GOT TO WHATEVER LOCATION IT CAME FROM?

A NO, WE CANNOT.

Q CAN YOU TELL HOW IT GOT TO WHATEVER LOCATION IT CAME FROM?

A NO, I CANNOT.

Q CAN YOU TELL ME HOW LONG IT COULD STAY IN THE LOCATION FROM WHICH IT’S SOURCED?

A NOT SPECIFICALLY I CANNOT.

MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER?

MR. CLARKE: NO. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: I’M ASSUMING THIS WITNESS IS TO BE EXCUSED.

MR. FELDMAN: NO OBJECTION.

MR. CLARKE: FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR, FOR COMING IN. YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE THESE PROCEEDINGS. KEEP IN MIND YOU’RE UNDER AN ADMONITION, PLEASE, NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE UNTIL THE MATTER IS CONCLUDED.

HAVE A PLEASANT DAY. ARE YOU HEADING BACK EAST TODAY?

THE WITNESS: PROBABLY TOMORROW MORNING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAVE A GOOD TRIP.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

(THE WITNESS WAS EXCUSED.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARKE.

MR. CLARKE: YES.

CATHERINE THEISEN.

CATHERINE THEISEN,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: MA’AM, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS CATHERINE THEISEN. CATHERINE IS SPELLED WITH A C. THEISEN, T-H-E-I-S-E-N.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q GOOD AFTERNOON.

A GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q COULD YOU TELL US WHO YOU’RE EMPLOYED BY.

A I’M EMPLOYED BY THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. UNIT OF THE F. B. I. LABORATORY IN WASHINGTON, D. C.

Q WE’LL RETURN TO I THINK THAT WAS MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A.

A YES.

Q FIRST OF ALL, COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US HOW LONG YOU’VE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

A I’VE BEEN AT THE F. B. I. LABORATORY FOR FOURTEEN YEARS.

Q DURING THAT TIME PERIOD COULD YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR DUTIES HAVE BEEN.

A YES. FOR MY FIRST SIX AND A HALF YEARS THERE I WAS IN OUR D.N.A. RESEARCH UNIT. IN THAT POSITION I DEVELOPED AND TESTED NEW D.N.A. TYPING PROCEDURES AND IMPLEMENTED THEM IN OUR CRIME LABORATORY IN WASHINGTON.

FOR THEN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS I WAS IN OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE UNIT WHERE I DEVELOPED QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE F. B. I. LABORATORY.

AND AFTER THAT I THEN ENTERED OUR MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. UNIT.

Q COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY, PLEASE, YOUR FORMAL EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND.

A YES. I HAVE A BACHELOR’S DEGREE IN BIOLOGY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA AND A PH. D. IN HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS FROM JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

Q I’M SORRY. WAS THAT HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS?

A YES.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT IS.

A THAT IS THE STUDY OF HUMAN GENETICS AT THE D.N.A. LEVEL.

I SPENT MY TIME DOING VARIOUS D.N.A. RESEARCH PROJECTS TO EXPLORE QUESTIONS IN HUMAN GENETICS.

Q BETWEEN THE TIME PERIOD OF YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION AND YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE F. B. I., DID YOU HAVE ANY POSITIONS IN THAT INTERIM PERIOD?

A NO, I DID NOT. I WENT STRAIGHT TO THE F. B. I. FROM OBTAINING MY PH. D.

Q LET’S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE F. B. I. LABORATORY. YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE LABORATORY IN THE AREA OF D.N.A. TESTING.

A YES, I AM.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE GENERALLY WHAT THAT INCLUDES.

A YES. GENERALLY THE F. B. I. LABORATORY USES TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF D.N.A. TYPING PROCEDURES. THOSE CAN BE CATEGORIED INTO NUCLEAR D.N.A. TYPING AND MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPING. AND WE USE THESE TYPES OF EXAMS. ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE.

Q ALL RIGHT.

THIS JURY HAS HEARD FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO WITNESSES TESTIMONY ABOUT TESTING AND RESULTS AT THIRTEEN DIFFERENT WHAT WERE CALLED S.T.R. OR SHORT TANDEM REPEAT MARKERS. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE TERMS?

A YES, I AM.

Q WHAT TYPE OF D.N.A. TESTING DOES THAT INVOLVE?

A THAT INVOLVES DOING A SERIES OF PROCEDURES ON D.N.A. EVIDENCE. IT’S TYPICALLY USED FOR BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE WHICH HAS RELATIVELY SPEAKING LARGE AMOUNTS OF D.N.A. SUCH AS BLOOD OR SEMEN.

Q DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN ACTUALLY SETTING UP OR FORMING A PARTICULAR UNIT OF D.N.A. TESTING AT THE F. B. I. LABORATORY?

A YES, I DID. BACK WHEN I WAS IN THE D.N.A. RESEARCH UNIT, I TESTED AND VALIDATED AND IMPLEMENTED ONE OF OUR FIRST NUCLEAR D.N.A. TYPING PROCEDURES WHICH USES A PARTICULAR SUBSET OF A PROCEDURE THAT WE REFER TO AS P.C.R. SO THAT WAS AGAIN DEVELOPED IN OUR F. B. I. RESEARCH LABORATORY AND IMPLEMENTED FOR CASE WORKINGS BACK IN 1992.

Q OKAY.

I’M GOING TO VENTURE OUT INTO P.C.R. WHAT DOES THAT STAND FOR?

A THAT STANDS FOR SOMETHING CALLED THE POLYMERASE,
P-O-L-Y-M-E-R-A-S-E, CHAIN REACTION.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE IN A NUTSHELL WHAT THAT IS?

A IN A NUTSHELL WE CAN HAVE AN ANALOGY AS A PHOTOCOPIER. WHAT IT DOES IS TAKE IN A TEST TUBE AND CHEMICAL REACTION IN THE LABORATORY, WE CAN TAKE THE D.N.A. WE HAVE OBTAINED FROM A PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND MAKE MANY COPIES OF IT SO THAT WE CAN THEN ANALYZE THAT AND GET A D.N.A. TYPING RESULT.

Q IS THAT A PROCESS OR A TOOL USED IN AREAS JUST IN FORENSICS OR CRIMINAL CASES?

A IT IS A TOOL THAT WAS DEVELOPED BACK IN THE MID 1980’S AND SINCE THEN HAS BEEN USED IN EVERY ASPECT OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, THE STUDY OF D.N.A. IN ALL ORGANISMS.

Q INCLUDING DISEASE DIAGNOSIS IN HOSPITALS AND LABORATORIES?

A YES.

Q AS PART OF YOUR WORK AT THE F. B. I., DID YOU STUDY THE RESULTS OF VARIOUS SUBSTANCES BEING APPLIED TO D.N.A., WHETHER BLOODSTAINS, SEMEN STAINS, HAIR ROOTS, AND SO FORTH?

A YES, I DID. EARLIER IN THE DAYS OF D.N.A. RESEARCH WE HAD THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OTHER SUBSTANCES WHICH MIGHT BE IN CONTACT WITH THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE COULD AFFECT A D.N.A. TYPING RESULT. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION WE WANTED TO ASK AND ANSWER IS CAN SOME OTHER SUBSTANCE NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE D.N.A. TYPING RESULT OR IN FACT CHANGE A TYPING RESULT. AND WHAT WE FOUND BY TESTING HUMAN BODY FLUIDS WITH A VARIETY OF SUBSTANCES WHICH MIGHT BE FOUND IN CRIME SCENE, SUCH AS GASOLINE, MOTOR OIL, A WHOLE RANGE OF SUBSTANCES, IS THAT YOU CAN PERHAPS DESTROY THE D.N.A. BUT YOU COULD NEVER AFFECT IT SO THAT YOU CAN GET A WRONG D.N.A. TYPE.

Q WAS ONE OF THE SUBSTANCES THAT YOU STUDIED TO DETERMINE ITS POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON D.N.A. COMMON HOUSEHOLD BLEACH?

A YES, IT WAS.

Q WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF YOUR STUDY INVOLVING THE EFFECTS, IF ANY, OF BLEACH ON D.N.A.?

A BLEACH DEGRADES OR BREAKS DOWN D.N.A. WHICH WOULD THEN CAUSE YOU TO GET NO D.N.A. TYPING RESULT. IN FACT, WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BLEACH. WE USE THAT ROUTINELY TO CLEAN OUR WORK SURFACES IN THE LABORATORY TO GET RID OF ANY POTENTIAL D.N.A.

Q IS IT THE CASE, THEN, THAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO DISCOVER ANY SUBSTANCE THAT WOULD MAKE OR CHANGE D.N.A. TYPES FROM ONE FORM INTO A DIFFERENT TYPE?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q IS THE F. B. I. LABORATORY ACCREDITED?

A YES, IT IS. IT’S ACCREDITED BY AN ORGANIZATION CALLED THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORATORY DIRECTORS LABORATORY ACCREDITATION BOARD.

Q ARE YOU PARTICULARLY FAMILIAR WITH THAT GROUP FOR ANY PARTICULAR REASON?

A YES, I AM. I’M INVOLVED WITH THAT GROUP IN TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS. I’M A CERTIFIED INSPECTOR WITH THAT GROUP, AND SO IN THAT ROLE I GO AROUND TO OTHER FORENSIC LABORATORIES IN THE COUNTRY, INSPECT THEM FOR THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS, AND THEN JUDGE THEM OR GRADE THEM AGAINST THESE STANDARDS.

ADDITIONALLY, I’M ON WHAT’S CALLED A PROFICIENCY REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THEM. AND IN THAT ROLE I EVALUATE D.N.A. PROFICIENCY TESTS WHICH ARE TESTS TAKEN BY D.N.A. ANALYSTS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY ON A ROUTINE BASIS, TYPICALLY TWICE A YEAR. AND THOSE ARE TAKEN BY ANALYSTS TO ASSURE THEY ARE QUALIFIED IN D.N.A. TYPING.

AGAIN, WHAT I DO IN THAT ROLE IS EVALUATE THE TESTS OF THESE ANALYSTS AND REPORT BACK ON OUR RESULTS OF LOOKING AT THESE OTHER PEOPLE’S TESTS.

Q HAVE YOU MADE ANY PRESENTATIONS TO SCIENTIFIC GROUPS OR OTHER GROUPS ABOUT D.N.A.?

A YES, I HAVE. I’VE GIVEN OVER TWENTY PRESENTATIONS OVER THE LAST FOURTEEN YEARS OR SO WITH THE F. B. I. IN THE AREAS OF FORENSIC D.N.A. TYPING AND ADDITIONAL TALKS IN QUALITY ASSURANCE, ESPECIALLY AS IT APPLIES TO D.N.A.TYPING.

Q HAVE YOU AUTHORED ANY PUBLICATIONS IN THE AREA OF D.N.A.?

A YES, I HAVE. I HAVE AUTHORED OR CO-AUTHORED MORE THAN TWENTY PUBLICATIONS. THESE ARE PUBLISHED IN WHAT ARE CALLED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

NOW I WANT TO RETURN TO THE TERM YOU USED. AND YOU USED NUCLEAR D.N.A. I BELIEVE TO DESCRIBE THE S.T.R. FORM OF TESTING THAT THIS JURY HAS ALREADY HEARD ABOUT EARLIER TODAY.

A YES.

Q THEN I BELIEVE YOU USED THE TERM MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IS THAT RIGHT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q TELL US WHAT THAT IS.

A I WILL SPELL IT FIRST. MITOCHONDRIAL IS
M-I-T-O-C-H-O-N-D-R-I-A-L. WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF D.N.A. IN OUR BODIES: NUCLEAR D.N.A. AND MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. NUCLEAR D.N.A. IS INHERITED FROM BOTH OUR MOTHERS AND OUR FATHERS, AND IT CONFERS UNIQUE IDENTITY UPON US. SO IF WE DO A D.N.A. TYPING TEST OF NUCLEAR D.N.A., WE CAN SAY THAT A PERSON IS A SOURCE OF A PARTICULAR ITEM OF EVIDENCE TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER INDIVIDUALS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IS INHERITED ONLY FROM OUR MOTHERS. THEREFORE, WE SHARE OUR MITOCHONDRIAL TYPE WITH OUR SIBLINGS, OUR MOTHER, OUR MOTHER’S SIBLINGS, AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO IS RELATED TO US IN A MATERNAL LINE.

NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS, THEN, IS THAT IT IS NOT UNIQUELY IDENTIFIED. HOWEVER, ALTHOUGH YOU DO SHARE TYPES WITH YOUR MATERNAL RELATIVES, MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPES ARE STILL HIGHLY VARIABLE IN THE POPULATION, SO THERE’S A VERY HIGH CHANCE THAT ANY TWO OF US WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE.

Q SO PEOPLE, THEN, DIFFER IN THEIR MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A., IS THAT CORRECT?

A YES.

Q BUT USING THAT TECHNIQUE, YOU CAN’T DISTINGUISH PEOPLE LET’S SAY TO THE POINT OF IDENTIFYING A SINGLE PERSON TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q THIS JURY HAS HEARD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY TODAY THAT EVIDENCE SAMPLES MATCH KNOWN SAMPLES AND EXTREMELY RARE LIKELIHOODS THAT ANYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THAT SAMPLE. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE TYPES OF RESULTS IN NUCLEAR D.N.A. CASES?

A YES, I AM.

MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION. YOUR HONOR, THE PREDICATE TO THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE ANSWER WILL STAND.

NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. I GATHER IS DIFFERENT, THEN, IN THAT RESPECT.

A YES, IT IS. WE AGAIN SHARE OUR MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPES WITH OUR MATERNAL RELATIVES. AND BY CHANCE WE MAY SHARE OUR MITOCHONDRIAL TYPE, MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE, WITH AN UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL.

Q YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THE FACT THAT IT’S INHERITED MATERNALLY, THAT’S MOTHER TO CHILD.

A YES.

Q DOES THAT MEAN THAT I WOULD HAVE THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. LET’S SAY FROM MY MOTHER?

A YOU WOULD HAVE THE SAME AS YOUR MOTHER.

Q WOULD I HAVE THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPES FROM MY BROTHERS OR SISTERS?

A YOU WOULD HAVE THE SAME MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPES AS YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

Q WHY IS MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. OF INTEREST TO SCIENTISTS?

A IT’S OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO FORENSIC SCIENTISTS BECAUSE ALTHOUGH AGAIN IT DOESN’T CONFER UNIQUENESS, IT IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL TO USE ON ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE VERY LITTLE NUCLEAR D.N.A. MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IS PRESENT IN WHAT WE CALL A MUCH HIGHER COPY NUMBER THAN NUCLEAR D.N.A.; THEREFORE, THE ANALYSIS OF MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IS VERY SENSITIVE.

SO IN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY THINGS SUCH AS HAIR, BONES, AND TEETH, WHERE THE — THERE IS EITHER VERY LITTLE NUCLEAR D.N.A. THERE OR THE NUCLEAR D.N.A. THAT WAS THERE WAS DEGRADED OR BROKEN DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU CAN’T GET A NUCLEAR RESULT, IT DOES PROVIDE US WITH D.N.A. RESULTS FOR THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE. AND AGAIN IT IS A VERY POWERFUL TECHNIQUE FOR EXCLUSION OR EXCLUDING SOMEBODY AS A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

A YES. IT IS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF OUR CASE WORK IN THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. UNIT AT THE F. B. I. LABORATORY CONSISTS OF HAIR.

Q OKAY.

LET’S TALK ABOUT HAIR. SO YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH HAIRS.

A I’M FAMILIAR WITH EXTRACTING D.N.A. AND OBTAINING MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE FROM HAIRS.

Q CAN YOU TELL THE JURY, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH A HAIR, DOES A HAIR HAVE A ROOT ATTACHED TO IT?

A ALL HAIRS HAVE ROOTS. HOWEVER, WHEN A HAIR IS SHED, IT MAY NOT HAVE A — SHED FROM YOUR SCALP, IT MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH ROOT TISSUE OR ENOUGH CELLS ATTACHED TO IT TO YIELD NUCLEAR D.N.A.

Q HOW ABOUT WHEN A HAIR IS PLUCKED OUT; IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE CONDITION OF THE ROOT THAN IF IT IS SHED OR FALLS OUT?

A OKAY. AGAIN, I’M NOT A HAIR EXAMINER, BUT I DO KNOW FROM MY TRAINING AND FROM WORKING WITH OUR HAIR EXAMINERS THAT, YES, WHEN YOU PULL A HAIR OUT FROM YOUR HEAD, THERE IS A MUCH HIGHER CHANCE THAT THERE WILL BE ACTUALLY TISSUE OR CELLS ATTACHED TO IT WHICH CAN YIELD NUCLEAR D.N.A., NUCLEAR D.N.A. TYPING.

Q SO IS IT THE CASE, THEN, THAT NUCLEAR D.N.A. OR THOSE S.T.R.’S THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT MAY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN RESULTS IF THERE IS ENOUGH ROOT ATTACHED TO THE HAIR?

A YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

Q WHAT IF THERE IS LITTLE OR NO ROOT ATTACHED TO THE HAIR, CAN NUCLEAR D.N.A. EVEN BE USED?

A IT CAN BE ATTEMPTED. IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT IT WON’T WORK. AND SO WE GO STRAIGHT TO MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPING IN SUCH A SITUATION.

Q WHERE DO YOU GET D.N.A. FROM A HAIR IF THERE IS LITTLE OR NO ROOT ATTACHED TO IT?

A THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IS ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE HAIR.

Q SO, THEREFORE, YOU CAN USE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TO TEST A HAIR EVEN WITH NO ROOT WHATSOEVER?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q IS MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. OF INTEREST TO SCIENTISTS OUTSIDE THE CRIME LABORATORY?

A YES, IT IS. IT HAS BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY OVER THE PAST PROBABLY FORTY YEARS OR SO TO STUDY DISEASES AND ALSO TO STUDY EVOLUTION AND ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE MIGRATION OF DIFFERENT HUMAN POPULATIONS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Q ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LAST RUSSIAN ROYAL FAMILY, THE ROMANOVS, AND MOST OF THEIR CHILDREN?

A YES. I HAVE READ THE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS ON THAT.

Q WAS MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. USED TO HELP DETERMINE IF IN FACT BONES FOUND IN A SHALLOW GRAVE IN RUSSIA WERE, INDEED, THOSE OF THE LAST RUSSIAN ROYAL FAMILY?

A YES, IT WAS.

Q IS IT USED IN IDENTIFYING THE REMAINS OF AMERICAN WAR DEAD?

A YES, IT HAS. THERE HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC PUBLICATIONS ON, FOR EXAMPLE, IDENTIFYING WAR DEAD FROM VIET NAM.

Q TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS IT BEEN UTILIZED TO IDENTIFY THE REMAINS OF AMERICAN WAR DEAD FROM MORE RECENT WARS?

A I BELIEVE SO.

Q IS IT USED TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN MILITARY DISASTERS, INCLUDING AIR DISASTERS?

A YES. IT IS ROUTINELY USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

Q AND LASTLY, HAS IT BEEN UTILIZED TO IDENTIFY REMAINS OF THE AMERICANS KILLED IN THE TERRORIST ATTACKS LAST YEAR?

A YES. IT HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY USED FOR THAT IDENTIFICATION.

Q YOU USE METHODS TO TYPE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. I ASSUME. IS THAT CORRECT?

A YES, I DO.

Q HOW DO THEY DIFFER IF YOU CAN BRIEFLY TELL US FROM THOSE METHODS USED TO TYPE NUCLEAR D.N.A. OR S.T.R.’S AS WE HAVE HEARD THEM CALLED?

A THE PROCESSES ARE COMPLETELY PARALLEL UP TO A CERTAIN POINT WITH BOTH TYPINGS. WE HAVE TO EXTRACT THE D.N.A. FROM OUR ITEM OF EVIDENCE. AND WE GO THROUGH A SERIES OF CHEMICAL REACTIONS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

WE THEN SUBJECT THE D.N.A. THAT WE GET OUT OF THAT TO THIS WHAT WE REFERRED TO BEFORE, THIS P.C.R., WHICH AGAIN YOU CAN THINK BACK TO A PHOTOCOPIER OR SOMETHING MAKING MANY, MANY COPIES OF THAT D.N.A.

AT THAT POINT THE TWO KINDS OF ANALYSIS DIFFER A LITTLE BIT. AND FOR MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPING WHAT WE DO THEN IS SOMETHING CALLED D.N.A. SEQUENCING WHERE WE DETERMINE THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE OF A PORTION OF THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. MOLECULE. AND WHAT WE WILL DO IN A CASE THEN IS COMPARE THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE THAT WE GET FROM AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE WITH THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE THAT WE GET FROM A KNOWN REFERENCE SAMPLE.

Q AND THEN DO YOU MAKE COMPARISONS BASED ON THOSE RESULTS?

A YES, WE DO.

Q CAN THOSE RESULTS THEN BE COMPARED SO THAT YOU DETERMINE A PERSON THAT IS A KNOWN SAMPLE THAT PERSON IS EITHER EXCLUDED OR INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL DONOR DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS?

A YES, WE DO. IF THE TYPES ARE THE SAME, THEN WE CAN INCLUDE A PARTICULAR PERSON AS BEING THE SOURCE OF THAT ITEM OF EVIDENCE. IF THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPES ARE DIFFERENT, THEN WE CAN EXCLUDE THAT PERSON AS BEING A SOURCE OF THAT ITEM OF EVIDENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE CONTRIBUTED THAT ITEM OF EVIDENCE.

Q IS THIS A TESTING TECHNIQUE, THAT IS, MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TESTING, IS IT LIMITED TO THE F. B. I. OR IS IT USED BY OTHER LABORATORIES?

A NO, IT’S NOT. IT’S USED BY OTHER FORENSIC LABORATORIES IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS AROUND THE WORLD.

Q WHAT YEAR DID THE F. B. I. BEGIN ACTUALLY USING MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IN ITS CASE WORK?

A IN CASE WORK WE BEGAN IN 1996. SIX YEARS AGO.

Q DO YOU OBTAIN DATA, INFORMATION, AS FAR AS MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TESTING THAT’S THEN CAPABLE OF BEING EXAMINED OR REVIEWED BY ANYONE WHO’S INTERESTED?

A YES, WE DO.

Q ALTHOUGH I ASSUME A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN’T KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND SAY WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOUR DATA, CAN THEY?

A THAT’S TRUE, TOO.

Q BUT IS IT PROVIDED IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A IT CERTAINLY IS.

Q AND IS IT MAINTAINED FOR REVIEW?

A YES, IT IS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT IN PARTICULAR THE
F. B. I. LABORATORY RECEIVED EVIDENCE IN A CASE INVOLVING THE DISAPPEARANCE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.

A YES, IT DID.

Q ALL RIGHT.

CAN YOU TELL US, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN THE LABORATORY RECEIVED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE ON THE INITIAL OCCASION.

A THE INITIAL OCCASION WE RECEIVED EVIDENCE ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2002.

Q WHAT DID THAT EVIDENCE INCLUDE?

MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, IT APPEARS THE WITNESS IS LOOKING AT SOMETHING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

DOCTOR, IF YOU MAKE REFERENCE TO AN ITEM, IF YOU WOULD JUST PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT IT IS AND WHAT PAGE SO COUNSEL CAN FOLLOW ALONG IF THEY DESIRE.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: YES. SOME PAGES ARE HERE AND SOME ARE IN MY NOTES IF I CAN REFER TO THOSE.

MR. CLARKE: PLEASE DO SO.

THE WITNESS: I’M REFERRING TO NOW WHAT IS CALLED OUR WORKSHEET. IT HAS FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AT THE TOP. IT’S DATED FEBRUARY 14TH, 2002.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q DOES THAT WORKSHEET REFLECT THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE BUREAU ON THAT DATE IN FEBRUARY?

A YES, IT DOES.

Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THEM FOR ME.

A YES. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DESCRIBE THEM INDIVIDUALLY?

Q YES, PLEASE.

A WE HAVE THEM LISTED AS SPECIMENS Q1 THROUGH Q5, AND THAT’S IDENTIFIED AS DEBRIS FROM A VACUUM CLEANER. SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT’S NUMBERS ON THOSE ARE ITEMS 23-1 THROUGH
23-5.

Q LET ME STOP YOU JUST FOR A MOMENT. WE HEARD THE ITEM NUMBER Q.

A YES.

Q HOW IS THAT ASSIGNED?

A THE F. B. I. LABORATORY ASSIGNS NUMBERS TO ITEMS OF EVIDENCE BASED ON THEIR POTENTIAL SOURCE. ITEMS THAT ARE OF UNKNOWN SOURCE OR QUESTIONED SOURCE WE REFER TO AS Q’S AND THEN NUMBER THEM SEQUENTIALLY IN A PARTICULAR CASE. SO THESE AGAIN I’M STARTING OUT WITH Q1 THROUGH Q5. AND I’LL PROCEED FROM THERE.

ITEMS FROM A KNOWN SOURCE ARE LABELED K FOR KNOWN, AND THEY START WITH K1 AND PROCEED ON THROUGH THAT CASE.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A OKAY.

THE NEXT ITEM IS ON Q6, DEBRIS FROM A VEHICLE. SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT NUMBER JS-1.

Q7, DEBRIS FROM VEHICLE. ITEM JS3.

Q8, DEBRIS FROM BATHROOM RUG. ITEM 80D.

Q ACTUALLY I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT IF WE CAN.

A OKAY.

Q I THINK THAT’S FOUR SO FAR. IS THAT RIGHT?

A Q1 THROUGH Q5 WAS THE FIRST, SO THAT WAS FIVE ITEMS GROUPED TOGETHER. AND WE WENT THROUGH 6, 7, AND 8.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I’M SORRY. COULD YOU TELL US Q8 AGAIN.

A Q8 IS DEBRIS FROM THE BATHROOM RUG. IT WAS PRESENTED IN THE COMMUNICATION TO ME AS A BATHROOM RUG FROM THE MOTOR HOME.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT HAD A DESIGNATION OF NUMBER —

A 80D.

Q 80D AS IN DAVID?

A YES.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A Q9 IS DEBRIS FROM THE REAR DRIVER’S SEAT. ITEM 17.

Q ALL RIGHT.

A Q10 ARE TWO GLASS MICROSCOPE SLIDES CONTAINING HAIRS FROM THE VICTIM’S HAIRBRUSH. ITEM TE-1.

AND THE FINAL ITEM RECEIVED IN THAT SUBMISSION ON THAT DAY IS ITEM K1, A SALIVA SAMPLE FROM BRENDA VAN DAM, THE IDENTIFIED MOTHER OF DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 80D THAT I BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBED AS Q8.1, IS THAT RIGHT?

A YES.

Q DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT CAME OUT OF A MOTOR HOME VERSUS ANOTHER TYPE OF VEHICLE?

A THAT IS SIMPLY HOW IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME IN THE LETTER I OBTAINED FROM THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q AS TO THE REMAINING QUESTIONED ITEMS, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION FROM WHAT YOU WERE PROVIDED OTHER THAN ITEM NUMBERS WHETHER OR NOT THOSE OTHER QUESTIONED ITEMS CAME FROM AN AREA OTHER THAN THE MOTOR HOME?

A AGAIN, THOSE IN THE — THEY WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE COMMUNICATION THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT. ITEMS 7 AND 9 WERE FROM THE SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE.

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, I’M SORRY. I DIDN’T HEAR WHETHER SHE SAID 7 AND OR 7 THROUGH 9.

THE COURT: 7 AND 9.

MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q DID YOU THEN CONDUCT MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TESTING ON THOSE QUESTIONED ITEMS OR EVIDENCE SAMPLES AND THE KNOWN SAMPLE FROM BRENDA VAN DAM?

A I CONDUCTED EXAMS. ON SOME OF THOSE ITEMS. WHEN THOSE ITEMS CAME INTO OUR LABORATORY, THEY WENT TO OUR HAIR EXAMINER, ONE OF OUR HAIR EXAMINERS. HE THEN SCREENED THE HAIRS, EVALUATED THEM, MAKES A SELECTION FROM THOSE HAIRS, AND TRANSFERS CUSTODY OF SOME OF THOSE HAIRS TO ME. SO I RECEIVED FROM THE TRACE EXAMINER, FROM THE HAIR EXAMINER, ITEMS Q2.1.

Q WHICH WAS FROM WHERE IF WE CAN JUST BREAK THAT DOWN?

A YES. THAT WAS FROM THE VACUUM CLEANER FROM THE MOTOR HOME.

ITEM Q7.1, WHICH WAS FROM THE S.U.V.

Q8.1 FROM THE BATHROOM RUG IN THE MOTOR HOME.

Q9.1 FROM THE S.U.V.

AS WELL AS K1, THE SALIVA SAMPLE FROM MRS. VAN DAM.

Q ALL RIGHT.

BEFORE WE GET INTO THE RESULTS, I WANT TO ALSO ASK YOU AND THEN WE WILL DEAL WITH THE RESULTS AT ONCE, DID YOU RECEIVE ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TESTING AT A LATER DATE?

A YES, I DID. ON TWO SUBSEQUENT DATES I RECEIVED ADDITIONAL ITEMS.

Q ALL RIGHT.

COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US THOSE DATES AND WHAT THE ITEMS WERE THAT YOU RECEIVED?

A YES. ON APRIL 16TH. I’M REFERRING NOW TO THE PAGE, FIRST PAGE OF MY LABORATORY REPORT, DATED MAY 20TH, 2002. APRIL 16TH RECEIVED TWO ADDITIONAL HAIRS THAT WERE QUESTIONED HAIRS. Q11, WHICH IS HAIR FROM THE S.U.V. AND Q12, ANOTHER HAIR FROM THE S.U.V.

Q DID YOU RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL KNOWN SAMPLES?

A YES. I RECEIVED A KNOWN HAIR SAMPLE.

Q ACTUALLY I’M GOING TO STOP YOU FOR A MOMENT. IF THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WE ARE REFERRING TO —

A YES.

Q — INDIVIDUALS BY FIRST NAME AND FIRST INITIAL OF THE LAST NAME.

A YES. I WILL DO THAT.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A I RECEIVED A KNOWN HEAD HAIR SAMPLE LABELED K2 FROM DANIELLE L.

EXCUSE ME. THAT K2 WAS AN AUTOPSY SAMPLE FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q SO LET ME STOP YOU FOR A MOMENT. IN YOUR INITIAL SHIPMENT THE ONLY KNOWN SAMPLE YOU RECEIVED WAS ONE IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM BRENDA VAN DAM?

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q IN THE SECOND SHIPMENT, THEN, YOU RECEIVED A SAMPLE IDENTIFIED AS AN AUTOPSY SAMPLE FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM.

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

A AND THE FINAL SAMPLE THEN RECEIVED ON MAY 1ST, 2002, IS LABELED ITEM K3. IT IS A SALIVA SAMPLE FROM DANIELLE L.

Q WAS TESTING THEN CONDUCTED ON ALL OF THESE ITEMS BUT NOT NECESSARILY AT THE SAME TIME?

A IT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE HAIRS Q11 TO Q12, TWO HAIRS IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM THE S.U.V. AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT ON ITEM K3, THE SALIVA SAMPLE FROM DANIELLE L.

Q ARE ANY STEPS UNDERTAKEN IN THE LABORATORY TO TEST EVIDENCE ITEMS VERSUS KNOWN ITEMS IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER?

A YES. WE ARE ACTUALLY VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE EXAMINE THESE ITEMS. IN A PARTICULAR SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE WE ANALYZE ONLY ONE SAMPLE AT A TIME. AND WE ANALYZE OUR QUESTIONED SAMPLES FIRST. AND THOSE ARE CARRIED THROUGH TO COMPLETION BEFORE WE ANALYZE THE KNOWN SAMPLE, THEREFORE ELIMINATING THE CHANCE THAT D.N.A. FROM THE KNOWN SAMPLE CAN CONTAMINATE THAT OF THE QUESTIONED SAMPLE.

Q LET’S TALK FIRST ABOUT THE FIRST GROUPING OF ITEMS THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT I THINK YOU DESCRIBED AS COMING FROM THE MOTOR HOME AS WELL AS THE S.U.V. IS THAT RIGHT?

A CORRECT.

Q FROM THAT FIRST GROUP OF TESTING, DID YOU OBTAIN ANY SAMPLES FROM EVIDENCE MATERIALS THAT MATCHED ANY OF THE KNOWN SAMPLES?

A YES, I DID. I OBTAINED D.N.A., MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A., TYPING RESULTS FROM THOSE FOUR ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. ONE OF THOSE I CANNOT EXCLUDE AS COMING FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM. ANOTHER ONE I CANNOT EXCLUDE AS COMING FROM DANIELLE L.

Q ALL RIGHT.

LET’S TALK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY WHAT THOSE ITEMS WERE.

A YES. ITEM Q8.1 FROM THE BATHROOM RUG OF THE S.U.V. — EXCUSE ME — OF THE MOTOR HOME CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS COMING FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q OR ONE OF DANIELLE VAN DAM’S SIBLINGS, THAT IS, BROTHERS OR SISTERS?

A BASED ON THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPING, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

Q OR BENDA VAN DAM.

A THAT IS CORRECT.

Q NOW, YOU SAY BASED ON THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TESTING, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

A THAT A HAIR EXAMINER WILL SCREEN THE HAIRS FIRST, AND IF HAIRS CAN BE EXCLUDED AS COMING FROM A PERSON, THAT IS ANOTHER EXCLUSIONARY TOOL THAT WE USE IN THE LABORATORY.

Q THAT’S BY A VISUAL TECHNIQUE?

A YES. MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS.

Q SO WHILE ONE HAIR MAY BE CAPABLE OR AT LEAST COULD HAVE COME FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, FAMILY MEMBERS, TYPICALLY I WOULD ASSUME MOTHER AND CHILDREN, THERE MAY BE OTHER METHODS WHERE THE OTHERS CAN BE EXCLUDED.

Q DR. THEISEN, WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IS IF YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER AT THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, AGAIN EXHIBIT 124. FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS BOARD PRIOR TO TODAY.

A YES, I HAVE.

Q WE SEE AT THE TOP IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER
F. B. I. NUMBER.

A YES.

Q DOES THAT APPEAR TO REFLECT THE F. B. I. NUMBER OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM?

A YES, IT DOES.

Q 8.1?

A YES.

Q SORRY. Q8.1.

A YES.

Q AND TO THE RIGHT OF THAT IS LISTED ITEM NUMBER 80D AS IN DAVID.

A YES.

Q THEN YOU SEE UNDER DESCRIPTION HAIR WESTERFIELD MOTOR HOME BATHROOM BATH MAT.

A YES.

Q AND UNDER POSSIBLE SOURCE DANIELLE VAN DAM. DO YOU SEE THAT?

A YES.

Q AND THEN IN SMALLER PRINT ARE THE NAMES BRENDA VAN DAM, DEREK VAN DAM, AND DYLAN VAN DAM, IS THAT CORRECT?

A THAT’S CORRECT.

Q ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, FIRST OF ALL, LET’S USE THIS RESULT WE HAVE BEFORE US. WHEN A SAMPLE COULD HAVE COME, AND I’M TALKING ABOUT MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. RESULTS, FROM A PARTICULAR PERSON OR PERSONS, THIS JURY HEARD PREVIOUS, THAT IS, EARLIER TODAY, ABOUT ESTIMATES ARE MADE OF THE RARITY OF MATCHING D.N.A. PROFILES FROM EVIDENCE AND PERSONS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IS HOW DOES MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. DIFFER IF IT DOES FROM THOSE TYPES OF DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF PEOPLE BY COINCIDENCE HAVING MATCHING PROFILES.

A YES. WE DO HAVE TO APPROACH THE ESTIMATE OF HOW RARE A COMMON TYPE IS IN A DIFFERENT WAY FROM THE WAY THAT WE DO FOR NUCLEAR D.N.A. ANALYSIS.

IN NUCLEAR D.N.A. ANALYSIS WE ARE LOOKING AT THIRTEEN DIFFERENT GENETIC LOCATIONS, AND EACH OF THOSE IS NOT PARTICULARLY HIGHLY VARIABLE IN A POPULATION. THE POWER OF NUCLEAR D.N.A. ANALYSIS COMES IN BY COMBINING ALL THIRTEEN OF THOSE GENETIC LOCATIONS. BUT EACH OF THOSE IS NOT ESPECIALLY VARIABLE. THEREFORE, WE CAN WITH NOT VERY MANY POPULATION SAMPLES, THAT IS, RANDOM SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS POPULATION GROUPS, WE CAN MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF THE FREQUENCY OF THOSE TYPES.

ON THE OTHER HAND, MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IS HIGHLY VARIABLE IN A POPULATION, AND IT’S ONLY ONE GENETIC LOCATION AS OPPOSED TO THE THIRTEEN WE’RE LOOKING AT WITH NUCLEAR D.N.A. IT’S ONE GENETIC LOCATION WITH A LOT OF VARIATION IN THE POPULATION. AND WE HAVE NOT SEEN ALL THE VARIATION THAT THERE IS IN THE POPULATION. WE HAVE NOT VISUALIZED EVERY SINGLE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE THAT THERE IS. THEREFORE, WE CAN’T PROVIDE AN ACCURATE FREQUENCY ESTIMATE WHEN WE’RE TRYING TO ASSESS HOW RARE A COMMON TYPE IS.

SO WHAT WE DO INSTEAD IS PRESENT THE RESULTS OF A DATA BASE SEARCH. OUR DATA BASE CONSISTS OF 5,071 INDIVIDUALS FROM VARIOUS POPULATION GROUPS. THE GROUPS ARE BROKEN DOWN GENERALLY INTO PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT, CAUCASIAN DESCENT, ASIAN DESCENT, NATIVE AMERICAN DESCENT, AND HISPANIC DESCENT. AND SO WHAT WE DO IS SEARCH THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE THAT WE OBTAIN AGAINST THAT DATA BASE AND SIMPLY PRESENT HOW MANY TIMES WE’VE SEEN THAT TYPE IN OUR POPULATION DATA BASE.

Q HOW ARE THESE DATA BASES CREATED? IN OTHER WORDS, WHO ARE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN THE DATA BASES?

A IT CONSISTS OF RANDOM INDIVIDUALS. WE HAVE SEVEN DIFFERENT LABORATORIES FROM AROUND THE WORLD WHO HAVE PROVIDED D.N.A. TYPES OF RANDOM INDIVIDUALS TO THE POPULATION DATA BASE.

Q ALL RIGHT.

NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPES OR — IS THE PROPER TERM SEQUENCE OR TYPES?

A YOU COULD USE EITHER.

Q WITH REGARD TO THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPES THAT ARE SHARED BY BOTH DANIELLE VAN DAM AS WELL AS HER MOTHER AND SIBLINGS, AND THE EVIDENCE ITEM NUMBER 80D, THE HAIR FROM THE BATHROOM RUG, FIRST OF ALL, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT SEQUENCE THAT THOSE TWO SAMPLES SHARE IN YOUR DATA BASE?

A WE HAVE NOT.

Q BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THAT SAMPLE CAME FROM DANIELLE VAN DAM, HER MOTHER, OR SIBLINGS OR ANYONE ELSE TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

A NO, IT DOES NOT.

Q IT JUST MEANS THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE.

A YES.

MR. CLARKE: NOW, I’VE ALSO HAD MARKED, YOUR HONOR, AS EXHIBIT 123 A BOARD LABELED AT THE TOP “MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A.” AND THEN WITH THE NAMES BRENDA VAN DAM PLUS CHILDREN UNDERNEATH THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DISPLAY BOARD ENTITLED “MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A.”

MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 123 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. CLARKE:

Q DR. THEISEN, WHEN YOU MAKE COMPARISONS AND YOU’VE DETERMINED THESE TYPES, AND THIS JURY HAS SEEN PREVIOUS BOARDS WHERE AT A PARTICULAR GENETIC MARKER THERE MAY BE TYPES LISTED OF 13 COMMA 15, IS MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. LIKE THAT OR IS IT DIFFERENT?

A IT’S LISTED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. FOR A PARTICULAR MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE WE LIST A SERIES OF NUMBERS AND LETTERS WHICH AS A GROUP REPRESENT THAT PARTICULAR MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE.

Q WHEN YOU DETERMINE A KNOWN PROFILE, LET’S SAY FROM A KNOWN SAMPLE FROM BRENDA VAN DAM, HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THAT WHEN YOU USE THAT, PUT IT IN YOUR DATA AND THEN MAKE COMPARISONS ULTIMATELY WITH TYPES THAT YOU OBTAIN FROM EVIDENCE SAMPLES?

A I’M SORRY. CAN YOU RESTATE THAT?

Q SURE. I’LL TAKE A STAB AT IT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK I SAID IT VERY WELL.

WHEN YOU LIST A PERSON’S KNOWN TYPE FOR PURPOSES OF REPORTS OR EVEN WITHIN THE LABORATORY TO MAKE COMPARISONS TO EVIDENCE SAMPLES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE AT A DIFFERENT TIME, HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE THEM?

A WE DESCRIBE THEM AGAIN BY A SERIES OF LETTERS AND NUMBERS. AND THEY REPRESENT PARTICULAR LOCATIONS ON THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. IN THAT PARTICULAR SAMPLE. SO IT’S SORT OF A CODE REPRESENTING THAT TYPE.

Q OKAY.

I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT A BOARD THAT’S BEEN MARKED EXHIBIT 123, LABELED MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. AT THE TOP. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY?

A YES, I HAVE.

Q WHAT IS IT?

A THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A. TYPE THAT I OBTAINED FROM THE 18.1 HAIR AND THE K1 SALIVA SAMPLE FROM BRENDA VAN DAM.

Q ALL RIGHT.

SO THESE ARE THE PARTICULAR TYPES FOR WHAT YOU FOUND FROM THE TESTING THAT WAS THE SAME IN BOTH BRENDA VAN DAM’S KNOWN SAMPLE AND THE HAIR FROM THE BATHROOM RUG, ITEM 80D OF THE LOCAL ITEM NUMBER?

A YES, IT IS.

Q CAN THIS THEN BE USED FOR COMPARISON TO OTHER EVIDENCE ITEMS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN TESTED IN THIS CASE?

A YES, IT CAN.

Q NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ASK YOU ABOUT THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU’VE TESTED. I BELIEVE WE’VE COVERED THE BATHROOM RUG HAIR. COULD YOU GO ON TO ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU DETERMINED COULD HAVE COME FROM INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU WERE PROVIDED KNOWN SAMPLES OF.

A YES, I CAN.

RIGHT NOW I’LL REFER TO TWO SHEETS OF PAPER CALLED MY CASE SUMMARY SHEETS. THEY ARE CHARTS WITHIN THE PACKET THAT WAS PROVIDED.

Q ALL RIGHT.

A THE Q2.1 HAIR WHICH CAME FROM THE VACUUM FROM THE MOTOR HOME, THE Q7.1 HAIR WHICH CAME FROM THE S.U.V., THE Q9.1 HAIR WHICH CAME FROM THE S.U.V., THE Q11 HAIR FROM THE S.U.V., AND THE Q12 HAIR FROM THE S.U.V. CAN ALL BE EXCLUDED AS HAVING THE SAME SOURCE AS BRENDA VAN DAM OR DANIELLE VAN DAM.

Q CAN THEY BE OR WERE THEY COMPARED TO THE OTHER KNOWN SAMPLE OR SAMPLES THAT YOU RECEIVED?

A YES. THEY WERE ALSO COMPARED TO A KNOWN SAMPLE FROM DANIELLE L. TWO OF THOSE HAIRS, Q9.1 AND Q11 CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS COMING FROM DANIELLE L.

Q WITH REGARD TO THOSE ITEMS, I KNOW YOU GAVE THE Q NUMBER, BUT IF YOU COULD DESCRIBE FOR US WHERE THEY WERE OBTAINED FROM AND THEIR DESCRIPTIONS SO THAT WE CAN BASICALLY —

A WHERE THEY CAME FROM, YES. Q9.1 AND Q11 CAME FROM THE S.U.V. AND, AGAIN, THEY CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS COMING FROM DANIELLE L.

Q WITH REGARD TO THOSE TWO HAIRS THAT COULD HAVE COME FROM DANIELLE L., DID YOU MAKE A COMPARISON OF THE RARITY OF THOSE TYPES AGAINST YOUR DATA BASE AS WELL?

A YES, I DID. I COMPARED THE TYPE THAT I OBTAINED FROM THOSE AGAINST THIS SAME DATA BASE THAT I HAD PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED TO.

Q WITH WHAT RESULTS?

A WITH THE RESULTS THERE — I’M REFERRING NOW TO MY REPORT DATED MAY 20TH, 2002. I OBSERVED THAT TYPE A TOTAL OF 35 TIMES IN THE TOTAL DATA BASE OF 5,071. ALL OF THOSE TYPES WERE NOTED IN POPULATIONS OF ASIAN DESCENT.

Q SO THAT WAS A MORE COMMON SEQUENCE BECAUSE YOU HAD OBSERVED IT BEFORE IN YOUR DATA BASES.

A YES.

Q AS FAR AS MITOCHONDRIAL D.N.A., DOES THAT MEAN THAT ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE HAIRS COULD HAVE COME ALSO FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MOTHER OF DANIELLE L.?

A YES, THEY COULD.

Q ALL RIGHT.

MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE BREAK?

MR. FELDMAN: PLEASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE AFTERNOON BREAK.

PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH OTHERS NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO YOU.